Corrupt Judges, Legal Precedent and Case Study Law, the Unholy Trinity of Justice

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

Our justice system has been hijacked by an exclusive gentlemen’s club, called the BAR.  In our so-called Roman Dutch Law, you may speak in higher courts only if you are a member in good standing with the BAR. As a lawyer, advocate or judge, you are bound, not by The Law, but Law as interpreted by the BAR. No crime committed by a judicial lackey has any real repercussions; if you know the right people, you can literally get away with murder. Should a lawyer, however, act contrary to the rules of his BAR club, he is immediately sanctioned, disowned and thrown to the wolves, to become an ambulance chaser or real estate agent. Out courts are subject to the rules and regulations of a club most people think is a government institution. Oh, and their main clubhouse is apparently in London.

Not only does the buddy-buddiness of our judicial officials open our justice system to corruption and bribery, it has a far more sinister consequence: Our law is interpreted on a case-by-case basis, using tricks of the trade, like case-studies and legal precedents. This is where a poor man walks into a courtroom for the same crime as a rich man, but somehow, the rich man’s lawyer ‘remembers’ a case in 1973 when a judge determined killing a man wearing a green shirt is less serious on every second Friday. For the poor man, murder is murder, for the rich, it is a regrettable mistake. Using a judgement as legal precedent is complete disregard for the law, it means that, once a judge has been bribed, his corrupted utterances can be used in perpetuity to excuse the transgressions of those who can afford the kind of lawyer that can convince a judge to accept the judgement of a corrupted court from the past. Somehow, these defences are not available to the poor from ordinary lawyers. For us, justice must be commensurate with the crime.

Also, if a rich man stands against a poor man, there is nothing stopping the two lawyers from sharing the much greater fee of the rich man, leaving the poor man poorer, for the court shall order the loser to pay for everything. There is nothing that stops a rich man from accusing a poor man of any crime whatsoever, because he has a lawyer on call. How can having a lawyer on call give you such power? Again, the richer you are, the ‘better class’ your lawyer, and here is the most important qualification for all lawyers:

A good lawyer knows the law, a great lawyer knows the judge.

This is the soul of our justice system, and the justice system underlies or national character: our law belongs to a bunch of good old boys in London, and they are very concerned about the lawlessness and radicalisation of the lower classes. I would take this to court, but I cannot afford a lawyer…

Frankly, I would rather be judged by a convocation of elders unfamiliar with all parties, than by a bunch of professional buddies who don’t care one way or another whether the law is being served, upheld, enforced or corrupted, as long as they all agree life’s good, the rest can go rot.

That is The Law as we know it, tra-lalla-la-la-laa.